Today, I did an obscure search on Parental Alienation. I came up with an article by the Reverend Anne Grant, a person I hardle hold in high esteem yet none the less I address her on her presentation and her facts and not on my dislike for her misrepresentation of facts or the lack of facts entirely when she advocates for something. She touts principals and at times has used rumors, conjecture and has actually lied to the public by creating articles in which she omits critical facts and circumstances which, if people knew them, would make a huge difference in the informed judgments they might make or possibly even discount her writings altogether as those of a vigilante on a mission who does not care about the means by which she gets there, including misinforming the public.

Yet I digress. Let me move back into a third party perspective as my legal and psychological training has taught me to do so that I can, as much as possible give you and objective view of what I perceive to be an article that has substantially decreased value today.

I urge you, first and foremost to read Anne Grant's 1998 article at this link.

The topic of the article is supposedly to address Parental Alienation Syndrome. Anne Grant's premise is that it has been discredited. In her Op-ed peice she states as follows:

The so-called Parental Alienation Syndrome, touted by many in the Rhode Island Family Court, has been discredited by the American Psychological Association and, recently, by both the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and the Children's Legal Rights Journal. For more than a decade, I have witnessed the devastating effects of this strategy in Rhode Island courtrooms and families.

For it's publication date, it may or may not be accurate. For the sake of argument I will address it as of its time frame as well as it's current value, if any.

In the article Anne Grant states that Parental Alienation Syndrome has been discredited by the American Psychological Association.

In actuality the American Psychological Association stated on January 1, 2008 exactly as follows:

Statement on Parental Alienation Syndrome

The American Psychological Association (APA) believes that all mental health practitioners as well as law enforcement officials and the courts must take any reports of domestic violence in divorce and child custody cases seriously. An APA 1996 Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family noted the lack of data to support so-called "parental alienation syndrome", and raised concern about the term's use. However, we have no official position on the purported syndrome. [emphasis added.]

You may find this statement at the following website at the official site of the APA.org

The American Psychological Association did not as Anne Grant claims discredit Parental Alienation Syndrome. It simply lacked data and therefore did not have an official position as to whether it was an actual syndrome or not.

That is, in fact, the very position that the American Psychological Association takes today. This statement can be found in the detailed analysis located in an article quoting the same by two opposing therapists to PAS in The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online.

This is contained in the March 1, 2013 Publication, Volume 41, Book No. 1, Pages 98-104

Specifically in this analysis it states on Page 99 of the foregoing publication as follows:

The American Psychological Association has no official position on ‘parental alienation syndrome.’ … There is no evidence within the psychological literature of a diagnosable parental alienation syndrome.”

[Emphasis Added - Page 99]

Similarly, in doing my research of Anne Grant's article I found that her article was neither true of the other positions she states at the time the article was written, nor is it applicable now.

In short, the American Psychological Association will not add the Parental Alienation Syndrome to the DSM-5 and ICD-11 which are the major psychological publications of acceptance throughout the mental health community for a variety of reasons including 1) lack of empiricle data, 2) consideration of factors relating to syndromes as opposed to other mental health disorders, 3) lack of clarification of a definition and misinformation or misunderstandings about what PA or PAS is or is not in the psychological community, and 4) considerations of factors that reach well beyond the perview of the qualifications of a mental health syndrome or other mental illness but far reaching affects such as those that are both legal and political in nature, a consideration which may well be beyond the purview of the APA in such a consideration.

Yet, it is clear from extensive reading that while the courts may not be willing to accept Parental Alienation Syndrome as an actual mental health disorder because it it not contained in the DSM-5 and thererfore not considered more globally accepted, that does not mean that there are not substantial proponents in the psychological and therapeutic community that believe PAS should be recognized and accepted once a clear definition and understanding has been reached as to what PAS is and who it applies too. In the article in the Journal of Psychiatiatry a historical notation is made that more than 70 therapists proposed PAS for acceptance with a certain definition and guidelines.

Even though the proponent's definitions and criteria for acceptance of PAS have yet to be accepted at this juncture, that does not mean that PA or PAS does not exist, but rather that the APA wants to get it right and that they need not only strict definitions and criteria for identification but that they must also be concerned for practitioners' liability and the manner of treatment in addressing it, a subject which may be the hardest part of the entire process.

I have noted in reading Anne Grant's article that she embraces it with sensationalism as a newspaper would when trying to sell more newspapers.

For instance, Anne Grant does not mention convictions by persons in her article. She mentions arrests. People who are arrested are innocent until proven guilty. Arrests mean nothing. Police officers, as hard as they try, are not always right. In fact, sometimes they are dead wrong.

I was arrested once Anne. The police thought I was a drug dealer because one officer thought I matched the description of a guy who was reported to be dealing drugs. It was not until well into the procedure that I was able to show the police that I was actually the good citizen who called to report that the guy was dealing drugs and that they should send a squad car by. Yet by your account Anne, I should be judged because I was arrested even thought I was the "good guy" doing my civic duty to report the drug dealer.

Here's the hard part. I've done my homework. I always do but I can only suspect that Anne Grant does not. I see the sensationalized words she uses. I wonder how Anne Grant obtained what would have been "privileged communications" in cases that almost certainly would not have been revealed to her so how did she fill in the blanks. Did she guess? Did she just fill in what made the most sense? Did she just hear a lawyer or a parent claim something in court without an ounce of proof to show for it and without being under oath? I don't know these answers. What I do know is that what she has written can be pulled apart as easily as a well-boiled chicken at Thanksgiving! Sorry folks.... I like chicken and not turkey!

Rather than spend another 10 pages pulling apart the article to show how by virtue or research and common sense the house of cards created by Anne Grant's article isn't reliable because it's standing on quicksand, I'd like to address what I see as Parental Alienation.

Keep in mind that I am not trying to model the American Psychiatric Association in any way or to follow anyone's teachings. From the name itself, "Parental Alienation" I developed my own concept based upon what I have seen as a family law attorney in Rhode Island. It's not a wonderful defense or a wonderful offense in court. In fact, it is one of the hardest and most difficult things to prove. So how does anyone know what's going on, especially me, right?

In criminal law, a judge once said, the definition of "Child Pornography" may be vague and arguable in many instances, but ... I know it when I see it!

That is the case with me as a Rhode Island Family Law Attorney. Since Divorce and family law is all that I do in Rhode Island it makes it easier for me to focus. Ultimately, whether I represent a mother or a father, if any child is going to be hurt in the process, I'm on top of it like fleas on a dog! I'm not about to let my client or the other parent hurt a child and ultimately if a parent is damaging a relationship with the other parent then that is exactly what that are doing, they are hurting a child. Children are priority number one in my book!!

So, do I think Parental Alienation Syndrome exists? It's not my place to say. When you add syndrome on the end then you are talking about a mental health diagnosis and that is most assuredly not my field.

Do I believe that Parental Alienation exists? Absolutely! I have not one iota of doubt that it occurs and I've seen it over and over again. I've seen it by actions and inactions of both mothers and fathers. I've also seen attorneys ignore it and I've noticed that sometimes it is lost on the judge or even repatriation counselors and therapists entirely.

So in my opinion what is it? I'll answer that question and then I'll address it in more detail in my next article tomorrow.

Parental Alienation is when one parent through their words, actions, or their inactions creates an environment or provides information or deprives information from a child which causes the child to voluntarily want to disassociate with the other parent, become angry with the other parent and take on the feelings, beliefs and/or traits of the parent causing the alienating environment so the child no longer wants to have a relationship with the other parent.

I'll process that for the night myself while you do the same and tomorrow we'll address the difficulties that Parental Alienation causes to parents and to children.

In closing, if you read this Anne Grant, please do not write that I have claimed to be a psychologist or that I know more than them or that I have claimed that my personal definition (which continues to change as time goes on). I am a legal practitioner in Rhode Island intent on protecting children. Let's stick to the truth.

Saturday, January 12, 2013

Healthcare is another aspect considered in a Rhode Island Divorce, particularly if there are minor children involved.

In
a divorce involving minor children, Judge's typically want to hear
whether there is health care coverage afforded to any minor children of
the divorcing parties, who the primary insured on that insurance plan,
who will continue to maintain the plan and how, and how the expenses of
the minor children that are not covered by the existing health
insurance will be paid for by the divorcing spouses.

On it's surface it can be as simple as this little fact pattern below:

John
and Julie are getting divorced. John has family medical care through
his employer at a moderate cost that is deducted from his check each
week. John agrees to continue that coverage for the benefit of his
child(ren) and his soon to be ex-spouse for as long as they are
eligible. John and Julie will each pay 50% of all uninsured expenses
for the children. These would include co-pays, prescriptions that
aren't covered, etc. John and Julie shall each be responsible for their
own out of pocket medical expense.

That
instance isn't complicated and two reasonable people could come to that
agreement without too much difficulty and not even realize that they
have complied with the needs of the court and what the judge wants to
know.

Unfortunately,
divorces aren't always so amicable and agreements such as these can
become complicated if the parties become difficult with each other when
emotional tensions run high or if the parties simply become "penny
pinchers" such that they want the same amount as their spouse right
down to the last penny.

Let's
add a little glitch to John and Julie's scenario. Rather than wanting
to pay their child's uninsured and uncovered out of pocket medical
expenses equally, Julie makes $10,000 less per year than John so she
only thinks she should pay in proportion to her income which is 40% of
their total income. Julie thinks John should pay 60% of each expense.
Yet here's the problem.... what if either of their incomes fluctuate.
How often will it be monitored? What documents will be required for
disclosure? How can full compliance with disclosure be assured?

Though
Julie is trying to get herself out of paying an extra 10% she is
complicating the process immensely and possibly causing a situation
that could cause her and John to expend much more in unnecessary legal
fees than if she were simply to pay half of the uninsured medical
expenses. Instead, such an endeavor could lead to a computational
nightmare trying to keep up with who makes how much money and when and
whether the percentage relates to the time the service is rendered, the
time the bill is sent, or the time the bill is eventually paid.

If
delays in the calculations or court proceedings then who may be
responsible for the late charges, interest or costs of collection?

Do you recognize the other issues this scenario could raise?

All My Best to You on Your Journey Through The RI Family Court,Attorney Christopher A. Pearsall - "The Rhode Island Divorce Coach"™

Blog Links

Disclaimer:
All content on this website is merely informational for the convenience of
the general public. The information contained in this website is not legal advice and is NOT a substitute for legal advice
provided by a competent and licensed legal practitioner after being fully informed
about all the facts and circumstances surrounding your case. You should
always obtain professional legal advice before acting on any information found
on the internet, no matter how reliable it may be or
seem.

* The Rhode Island Supreme Court licenses all lawyers in the general practice of law. The court does not license or certify any lawyer as an expert or specialist in any field of practice.